Christopher Leslie: Today the Government will publish their report "Establishing an Inspectorate for Justice and Community Safety". Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	The proposals for consultation outlined in the report aim to introduce root and branch reform, changing the structure of inspection in the criminal justice system and enhancing the capacity for leadership and decision making.
	Independent inspection in the criminal justice system plays an important role in improving services and holding organisations to account for their performance. In recent years every criminal justice agency has undergone reform to deliver improvements to services; it is essential that the inspection regime is reformed to support these changes.
	The five justice inspectorates have done an excellent job in driving up performance. Therefore the Government propose to build on the current base of expertise and create an inspectorate for justice and community safety that continues the rigorous independent inspection of criminal justice agencies, including the treatment and conditions of those in custody, whilst broadening this to inspect across organisational boundaries to deliver a more joined up inspection system. An inspection regime that inspects the criminal justice process from end to end, supports the frontline by reducing unnecessary burden and bureaucracy and examines how the system can better deliver for those who come into contact with it.
	The Government welcome views on the precise design of the new inspectorate before 15 June 2005.

Ben Bradshaw: With my colleagues in Scotland and Wales I am delighted to announce that on 1 April 2005 the state veterinary service (SVS) will launch as an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, retaining the title the state veterinary service.
	The first chief executive will be Glenys Stacey who will take responsibility for a challenging programme of reforming the way that the services are delivered to its many stakeholders. The SVS has a long, commendable history of engagement with the farming and rural community. The agency will build on this as it enhances its operational and financial effectiveness and continuously improves on the vital role it plays in the fight against animal disease.
	The agency will work in close partnership with: its policy customers in the Department and the devolved administrations; other delivery agents; and its customers in the rural and livestock community, to deliver services that maximise the use of modern information technology and ensure the optimum utilisation of its staff.
	At the forefront of protection against animal-borne diseases and their potential impact on public health, the economy and the rural community, the agency will also be in the front line to deal with any outbreak.
	The chief executive has been set some demanding key targets for the first year.
	Copies have been placed in both Libraries of the House.
	Copies of the agency's framework document and any subsequent amendments will also be placed in both Libraries of the House. Further copies and other information about the agency can be obtained from the chief executive.

Jack Straw: On 14 July 2004, in his statement to the House, Official Report, column 1431, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced to the House that the Government accepted the conclusions of Lord Butler's review. In my written statement of 15 November 2004, Official Report, column 54WS, I said that Sir David Omand, the Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator, would lead the work on implementation of those conclusions. Sir David Omand has now completed this work and I should like to report the outcome to the House.
	A considerable amount has been done in a short time by Sir David, the Heads of the Security and Intelligence Agencies and senior officials in Government Departments to implement the conclusions. The detail is set out in a report (Cm 6492) that I am today laying before the House. Copies will also be placed in the Library of the House. A number of key actions have already been taken:
	Secret Intelligence Service has developed new procedures, provided additional resources and revised line management arrangements to improve evaluation and to oversee the quality of intelligence reporting. Work has taken place to ensure that source descriptions in intelligence reports across the intelligence community use standardised terminology and are consistent;
	Arrangements have been put in place across the community to ensure that the distribution of sensitive reporting can be extended when necessary;
	Joint Intelligence Committee processes have been reviewed and tightened up. Arrangements have been made so that in future the annual process to set the requirements and priorities for the collection and analysis of intelligence will apply to the Defence Intelligence Staff as well as the to three
	statutory agencies. A confidential guide for readers of intelligence, including information on the limitations of intelligence, has been produced and distributed; and
	Access to the Agencies' Staff Counsellor has been agreed for members of the assessments staff and fully analogous arrangements have been put in place for members of the Defence Intelligence Staff.
	Further work is in hand to improve the analytical support provided to the intelligence community following a study carried out by a senior Foreign Office official. That study has recommended and the Government have endorsed:
	the establishment of a Professional Head of Intelligence Analysis to advise in the security, defence and foreign affairs fields on analytical capability and methodology; recruitment and career management of analysts; and the development and oversight of more substantial training of analysts; and
	the expansion of the assessments staff, by about one third. This will provide additional internal review and challenge functions for Joint Intelligence Committee assessments; resource work on countries at risk of instability; and allow increased production of regular warning papers highlighting significant threats or other issues likely to face the Government in the near to medium term in the fields of security, defence and foreign affairs. Other small increases to make the assessments staff more effective are also recommended.
	Sir David Omand's successor as Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator has been asked to give high priority to implementing these measures.
	In addition to the publication of the detailed report on implementation of the conclusions of the Butler review, the Cabinet Office is publishing today an updated National Intelligence Machinery booklet. Copies of this are also being placed in the Library of the House. It is also on the Cabinet Office website: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk. This booklet sets out the roles, responsibility and organisation of the UK intelligence community and reflects the changes made as a result of the Butler review. It also includes an unclassified version of the guide for readers of intelligence that has been circulated within Government.
	Lord Butler's review has contributed greatly to the process underway to fit the UK's intelligence community for the future. The Government recognise the need to move substantially to implement its conclusions and has done so.

Des Browne: Following my statement on 20 December 2004 about Ken Sutton's report on allegations about the handling of applications under the European Community Association Agreements (ECAA), work has continued on next steps. This work includes putting in place procedures and guidance for the agreement with Turkey, consistent with recommendation 15 of Mr. Sutton's report.
	In line with Ken Sutton's second report recommendation 15, guidance for handling in country applications was reviewed in order to take account of experience of procedures and revised guidance on handling in-country applications from Romania and Bulgaria. Turkish ECAA in-country applications were held during this time. The robust procedures we put in place on ECAA further leave to remain cases are reflected, as far as possible, in procedures for handling in-country Turkish cases. This guidance will be published on the Home Office website and consideration of these cases will re-commence shortly.
	Guidance to manage Turkish applications made at port under this association agreement has already been published and we began consideration of applications for leave to enter at ports on 4 January 2005.

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend the Attorney General has made the following ministerial statement:
	"The trial judge in the case of R v. Rayment and Others at the central criminal court has today, 22 March 2005, discharged the jury, ending the proceedings.
	The trial dealt with an alleged fraud over contracts for the construction of London's Jubilee line extension project. The prosecution arose from allegations that the defendants conspired to defraud London Underground by gaining access to confidential insider information, which was used against London Underground Limited's interests during the course of its dealings with tenderers and contractors on the Jubilee line extension project. The information was relevant to the award of contracts worth tens of millions of pounds and also two substantial claims for additional monies under contracts awarded in connection with the Jubilee line extension project. The allegations also concerned corrupting public officials entrusted with safeguarding London Underground Limited's interests.
	Experienced lawyers considered the evidence in detail and a decision to prosecute was taken. Charges were brought in February 2000. Lord Williams, when he was Attorney General, granted consent in February 2000 to prosecute the corruption case on the basis that there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it was in the public interest to prosecute.
	The CPS were ready for trial in 2001 but the case was split into two trials. The first trial started with a jury on 26 June 2003. The case has been affected by delays and breaks. Time has been lost due to illness, scheduled holidays, periods of paternity leave, an operation and sickness of defendants. Legal argument has also involved substantial periods where the jury were not required to hear evidence. For example, in the last seven months the jury has heard evidence on only 13 days of the 140 available.
	The judge's ruling followed submissions by all parties in response to a request from the judge.
	Prosecuting counsel have advised that it is their clear view that there have been such delays and interruptions to this case that a fair trial is now impossible. Counsel formed a judgement that the case ought to be stopped. The DPP and I agree with that view and, therefore, approved prosecution counsel's statement to the trial judge informing her of this view.
	I agreed with the DPP last year the need for more control and robust management of large cases. The DPP has responded by developing a system, which will see a case management panel, chaired by the DPP, to consider the management of very large cases. The panel will consider issues such as the selection of charges, the number of defendants, likely number and length of trials and selection of trial advocates. It will also monitor progress of the case and key case management decisions during its life. It will be coupled with a similar process across the 42 CPS areas where chief Crown prosecutors will review the most serious and lengthy cases in their areas. This will be implemented from 4 April 2005 and I believe, offers real potential for getting a better grip on cases such as the current matter.
	In addition, the DPP has recently announced a new structure to deal with the most serious and complex cases in CPS headquarters. This will involve the DPP in more direct and substantial control over such cases. I welcome this restructuring.
	On 22 March the Lord Chief Justice issued a protocol for dealing with lengthy trials, which I welcomed. The protocol emphasises the need for robust and well-informed case management to identify and allow the court to focus on the real issues in the case. The new protocol fits clearly with the criminal case management framework that I issued last July together with Lord Falconer, Baroness Scotland and the Lord Chief Justice. The protocol and framework will continue the culture change in the way in which all criminal justice practitioners operate. The public are entitled to an efficient and effective criminal justice system and cases such as the present one must never be allowed to happen again.
	This decision will cause great public disquiet as it causes me considerable disquiet. Most serious allegations have not in the end been brought to a final conclusion. It is important and in the interest of the defendants, to underline that these allegations have not been proved and that they have maintained they are not guilty.
	Very considerable public money has been expended. Much time for a jury and for judge and defendants has been expended. It is important to learn what lessons we can. I have therefore asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of CPS, Stephen Wooler, to report to me on this case under section 2(1)(b) of the CPS Inspectorate Act 2000. The terms of reference of this review will be drawn up shortly. The DPP has confirmed that the prosecution will provide full cooperation in this inquiry."